Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election

Aletheia4u

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
941
Points
195
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
67,238
Reaction score
11,323
Points
2,030
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins. And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
96,637
Reaction score
24,057
Points
2,220
Location
Tested Negative For COVID-19
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
Sorry Chuck.....we don't negotiate with terrorists.
 

Obiwan

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
10,868
Reaction score
6,958
Points
1,095
Location
Indiana
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins. And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
In case you can't figure it out, the Senate has a say....

And they can change the "precedent" if they want to....

The Democrats did it all the time when THEY were in charge!!!!!
 

Quasar44

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
5,005
Reaction score
2,775
Points
903
Location
Las Vegas
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
Let me tell you about the fat schmuck Schumer
. He is a Bolshevik fraud and a pimp to Big Business , Big Tech , Dirty lawyers are nothing else

He is basically a giant greasy slab of cornbeef with 2 eyes, 2 ears and a huge mouth
. Hs is very smart but has less morals than Stalin
 

Camp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
Messages
27,642
Reaction score
6,876
Points
280
Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
 

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
25,257
Reaction score
7,817
Points
350
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
Why on earth is Schumer not wanting Trump to fill the position news? It's like telling people that the sky is blue.

Democrats have shown their ass after what they pulled with justice Kavenaugh. They will resist at any price no matter who it is and have no moral scruples about how they go about it.

And make no mistake, if the democrats owned the Senate and the White House, nothing would stop them from filling the seat.

Nothing!
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
67,238
Reaction score
11,323
Points
2,030
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins. And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
In case you can't figure it out, the Senate has a say....

And they can change the "precedent" if they want to....

The Democrats did it all the time when THEY were in charge!!!!!
True.

Except instead of changing the precedent set by the other party, turtle is changing his own precedent he set 48 months ago.
 

Quasar44

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
5,005
Reaction score
2,775
Points
903
Location
Las Vegas
Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate
 

xband

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
4,399
Reaction score
505
Points
140
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
Astounding in the least.
 

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
25,257
Reaction score
7,817
Points
350
This is what the GOP is up against

When Justice Kavenaugh first had his hearing, this was the type of left wing response


1600516188040.png


Here we have a "woman" smearing her mensuration all over her body so that the police won't want to forceably remove her when she started to shout obscenities at the justice

And this was all before the sexual abuse allegations.

Democrats are vile animals, and need to be treated as such.
 

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
24,810
Reaction score
10,564
Points
950
Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.

I don't know about that. But I do know that having hearings next month on the new Supreme Court justice would show the liberals as the nasty, ill tempered individuals they are, which can be contrasted with the President pounding out more peace agreements with warring nations and accepting Nobel Peace nominations. in the WH.
 

Quasar44

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
5,005
Reaction score
2,775
Points
903
Location
Las Vegas
The Republicans are weak and spineless !!
If these rapacious morons would have blocked the influx of tens of millions of peasants decades ago ; then they would be controlling every branch because their policies work
They refused to stop the influx of tens of millions of new peasants who vote blue
 

Camp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
Messages
27,642
Reaction score
6,876
Points
280
Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate
Rushing a nominee in before the election or new President and Senate will give the Dem's a rewarding excuse and support.
 

Quasar44

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
5,005
Reaction score
2,775
Points
903
Location
Las Vegas
Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate
Rushing a nominee in before the election or new President and Senate will give the Dem's a rewarding excuse and support.
It’s a common practice since Washington
They will try to expand and stack the court , anyways
F them
 

xband

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
4,399
Reaction score
505
Points
140
Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.

I don't know about that. But I do know that having hearings next month on the new Supreme Court justice would show the liberals as the nasty, ill tempered individuals they are, which can be contrasted with the President pounding out more peace agreements with warring nations and accepting Nobel Peace nominations. in the WH.
Democrats are powerless, bless their hearts.
 

Camp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
Messages
27,642
Reaction score
6,876
Points
280
Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate
Rushing a nominee in before the election or new President and Senate will give the Dem's a rewarding excuse and support.
It’s a common practice since Washington
They will try to expand and stack the court , anyways
F them
It's a huge gamble for Republicans and the results could be huge and overwhelming.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top